Lay opinion testimony; MRE 701; MRE 704; People v Fomby; Police truthfulness testimony; People v Lowrey; Victim criminal history & right to present a defense; Admissibility under MRE 404(a)(2); MRE 404(b)(1); People v Denson; Jury view & mistrial motion; MCL 768.28; People v Unger; Sufficiency of evidence for aiding & abetting first-degree murder; MCL 750.316; People v Plunkett; Post-Miranda silence impeachment; Doyle v Ohio; Voluntary manslaughter instruction; People v Yeager; Juror numbers in voir dire; People v Hanks; Prosecutorial misconduct; MRE 607; Ineffective assistance of counsel

The court held that the convictions of defendants-Bishop, Sharmel, and Larry for first degree premeditated murder and felony-firearm were properly affirmed because none of their evidentiary, constitutional, or instructional arguments established reversible error. The case arose from a fatal shooting at a dollar store after a mask dispute during the pandemic that escalated, leading the defendants to return together and confront the victim, after which Bishop shot him in the head. The trial court denied postjudgment motions and imposed life without parole plus a consecutive two-year firearm sentence. On appeal, the court held that the assistant manager’s lay opinion indicating coordinated action between Larry and Bishop was admissible because it was grounded in his direct perceptions at close range, noting there was “no error in the trial court’s handling of this witness’s testimony.” The court also upheld admission of a detective’s testimony describing Sharmel’s evasiveness during her interview because it reflected investigative perceptions rather than commenting on a testifying witness’s veracity. The “detective’s testimony did not improperly comment on Sharmel’s credibility as a witness or on her guilt as a criminal defendant.” The exclusion of the victim’s prior felony was affirmed because it was offered solely to support an impermissible propensity inference, and the court stated that “Bishop has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence at trial.” As to Larry, the court concluded that a rational jury could find aiding and abetting based on coordinated arrival, distraction, shooting sequence, and joint flight, holding that “a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Larry was more than merely present during the shooting[.]” The court further determined that any Doyle violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of Bishop’s own testimony and a curative instruction, explaining that “any error as to the challenged questions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” The court also held that a voluntary manslaughter instruction was unwarranted because nothing showed adequate provocation, and that the use of juror numbers, the prosecutor’s remarks, and related ineffective assistance claims provided no basis for relief.